[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6380069,"mediaKeyId","2133316-e5cc7a4ed925115686d29a27938d263d","parentId",2133316,"title","Judiciary panel removes closed‑hearing language and advances bill easing petition process for some registry cases","audioSeconds",946,"startMs",4594000,"endMs",5540000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2133316-e5cc7a4ed925115686d29a27938d263d&start=4594&end=5540","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2133316-e5cc7a4ed925115686d29a27938d263d/thumbnail_4594000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6380069/North-Dakota/Judiciary-panel-removes-closedhearing-language-and-advances-bill-easing-petition-process-for-some-registry-cases","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380069-b41ac589ac4254039741aa0f25a8feab/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168915&Signature=XRb5xlAFsHu~EWFYxRpL9svzv3mZKlnWD4hCyhy~PYxkV~m2karA1rseEV9bheEMF4FfC9F6sXKn-R0MF~mmh6FIzIEqIjS~mIViWeE36j-hrKNBytYZfTRmwPsyHE8Sk1Afk0L61RmhSR-EXM6eppuersbGY86Ib5~8j3SEwBV4zZazChPEyw8SSFTDNO4Fx7JJK7SNSEJmWbQ69E1I0gBh3b2EnA9Yn-NAJ7l1YEKkmmmibggATjv6PWW1ifkW-yAQIS7PNb5x84pru186m0ilvRP82BlF~braBLs7kSV4NR4TCl7KBdKc4o5Qk9geyFn6xX4wy0pRGq11Pkk1tw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Judiciary, ND","date","2025-01-20T00:00:00Z","article","The House Judiciary Committee voted to remove a provision that would have allowed petition hearings under House Bill 1231 to be closed to the public and then approved the bill as amended.

Chairman Clamine noted a constitutional concern raised by members about subsection 5, which would have authorized closing all or part of a petition hearing; Representative Van Winkle moved to remove subsection 5 and Representative Hoverson seconded. The roll call on that motion was recorded in the transcript as 9 yes, 1 no, and 4 absent. Chairman Clamine said removal would preserve transparency and that victims would continue to receive notice through the attorney general’s system.

Committee debate focused on statutory eligibility and remedies for persons on the sex‑offender registry. Members discussed the bill’s proposed pathways for registered persons to petition to have registry requirements reviewed after a period (the transcript records discussion of reducing a 15‑year requirement for some low‑risk classifications to a seven‑year petition window). Testimony and written submissions referenced differing views: Brad Peterson (attorney for Protection and Advocacy Project) and Casey Miller (chief agent with BCI) were cited in committee materials and testimony summarized in the transcript.

After removing subsection 5, a committee member moved a due‑pass recommendation for House Bill 1231 as amended; a second was recorded. The roll call on the due‑pass motion was recorded as 8 yes, 3 no, and 3 absent. The committee selected a bill carrier to present the bill to the full House.

Why it matters: the bill would create a petition process for some persons on the sex‑offender registry to seek relief or reassessment of registration obligations; removing the closed‑hearing language preserves public access to petition hearings. Supporters described the bill as a potential path to reduce long-term collateral consequences for low‑risk registrants; opponents and some victim‑advocacy groups urged caution and emphasized victim notice and safety.

Ending: The committee advanced HB1231 as amended and will send the bill to the House with the committee’s recommendation; members and staff will continue to discuss technical clarifications and statutory language.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary II Jan 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The House Judiciary Committee voted to remove a subsection that would allow closure of petition hearings and advanced House Bill 1231 as amended; members also discussed risk levels and petition options for persons on the sex-offender registry.","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28895,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6380074,"Panel votes to kill House Bill 1320 amid free-speech and scope concerns over deepfakes",212,3563000,3775000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2133316-e5cc7a4ed925115686d29a27938d263d&start=3563&end=3775","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2133316-e5cc7a4ed925115686d29a27938d263d/thumbnail_3563000.jpg","/articles/6380074/North-Dakota/Panel-votes-to-kill-House-Bill-1320-amid-free-speech-and-scope-concerns-over-deepfakes","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380074-7bbe519acec73550536a118db6dfaf37/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168915&Signature=VdzU9nMKM-KhrWYmmSWzD908m33rtXvrIqXmCUSNbMP28~WYnwUheRJKjT-U5UP559A9a-xHzWPeRNuXyZszAXfGC4O7eimqfmG-dUGGKRblH1LzL0k0GZoHjUk5BJpWjO0oJwNzibs~PzTO2JVx7oP0N6IoSVHi5gXvArMrWhC~G7~MyTDMBeVHxWJzfaujw1o6ZOYHsEgM4QAcvJELRlyJcV1sIBQZYzYNrwKgoqOapf7-6td7o~y89D0PCdCrjG3cGurEXqIRPiDArdDZ3p9pfJa6WUDoTBfqunjob7gttSaobxGXTZRgQmENOGfhJZz8Gf~sTq-7qEGj9g1N3Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend a do-not-pass on House Bill 1320 after members and witnesses raised concerns the bill’s possession-based language would be too broad and risk First Amendment issues.

Representative Wilson expressed worry that the bill’s wording might criminalize mere possession of computer-generated or AI-altered images without harmful distribution or intent, saying he was concerned the bill could \"catch all of that.\" An attorney from the North Dakota Council on Legal Counsel for Indigents testified that the provision appeared too broad and could raise free-speech concerns, according to the transcript.

Representative Olsen moved a do-not-pass recommendation on HB1320; Representative Christiansen seconded. The committee’s roll call was recorded in the transcript as 10 yes, 0 no, and 4 absent, meaning a majority favored killing the bill in committee.

Why it matters: proponents of regulating deepfakes have pressed the legislature to address image- and audio-manipulation that can harm victims or mislead the public; committee members said they did not want to advance a bill that might sweep in nonharmful possession or present constitutional problems. The committee’s discussion also noted overlapping bills (including bills numbered 1351 and 1386 in the transcript) on related topics and proposed forming a subcommittee to reconcile language across measures.

The committee did not adopt substitute language in lieu of killing HB1320. Members discussed consolidating parts of related bills in a subcommittee so the Legislature avoids conflicting statutes on AI-generated images and political deepfakes.

Ending: With the committee recommending a do-not-pass, HB1320 will not advance from this committee unless later revived or amended; members signaled intent to continue work on the subject across related bills.","The House Judiciary Committee voted to recommend a do-not-pass on House Bill 1320 after testimony and discussion raised concerns the bill’s possession-based language could be overly broad and implicate free-speech issues.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6380079,"Panel adds human-trafficking-of-children language to child abuse study, advances House Bill 1410",0,5291000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2133316-e5cc7a4ed925115686d29a27938d263d&start=5291&end=5291","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2133316-e5cc7a4ed925115686d29a27938d263d/thumbnail_5291000.jpg","/articles/6380079/North-Dakota/Panel-adds-human-trafficking-of-children-language-to-child-abuse-study-advances-House-Bill-1410","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380079-a263d05c6b98674fe296ca7258c499a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168915&Signature=AU9jsAiI~vOzefqgSBrrFl6iZytYCZP6XDlWf7V~q550OWvt2ep0eAfgH1O0369-CzpgsTy9V0GVHVT~untc6WCvpVRz14HLLq~Ie6-xjJz3gfuESp8nKGaTMsRSmg8K2E6oBVDxrfKANKV0U0dQO~oxyP18pbZlmUffJtxMaG7ZSjF9p2EidHE-IoRdIAW-HGNM9PwEB~xP5QC8GuwLq8Nj-pyRdLoY7nfsitCqFtGnBeJtXQmddbG9~cwZ1-sj8fxYSwsDdg-vA7wBtGaTJFgiA46OHty4MwbfFFn6a2ygf~SnNYtcC6vqQMk6m4gOUiqly7uzGOmVHTBEOKF29w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee voted to add human trafficking of children to the list of offenses the panel directed to study and advanced House Bill 1410 as amended.

Chairman Clamine said legislative staff and witnesses suggested adding explicit language about human trafficking to ensure the study would address the issue. Anna Frizzell asked the committee to make the amendment because \"with the seriousness of the discussion today...it would be helpful to put it in a list with physical abuse...and so forth of things that are going to be studied,\" according to the transcript.

The amendment replaced certain wording and inserted \"human trafficking of children\" into two places in the bill’s list of offenses; committee members read the amendment into the record before a motion. Representative Schneider moved the amendment; Representative Van Winkle seconded. The roll call recorded 11 yes, 0 no, and 4 absent; the amendment carried.

After considering the amendment, Representative Schneider moved a do pass as amended recommendation for HB1410; Representative Carls seconded. The roll call on the due-pass motion was recorded in the transcript as 10 yes, 0 no, and 4 absent. Chairman Clamine said the bill will be put on the consent calendar.

Why it matters: adding \"human trafficking of children\" makes the study list explicit about that offense and aligns the bill’s study scope with testimony urging focused attention on trafficking in the context of crimes against children. Committee members clarified the amendment specified \"human trafficking of children\" rather than a broader, non-age-specific trafficking provision; one member noted the study is limited to matters related to children.

The committee named a bill carrier to be prepared in case the bill is pulled from the consent calendar; no substantive changes beyond those described in the amendment were adopted in committee.

Ending: The committee approved the amendment and forwarded HB1410 to the consent calendar with a do-pass recommendation.","The House Judiciary Committee amended House Bill 1410 to add “human trafficking of children” to the list of offenses to be studied, approved the amendment unanimously among those voting, and then reported the bill to the consent calendar with a do-pass recommendation.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6380084,"House Judiciary panel advances bill to block name-search access to closed nonconviction court records",3889,1444000,5333000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2133316-e5cc7a4ed925115686d29a27938d263d&start=1444&end=5333","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2133316-e5cc7a4ed925115686d29a27938d263d/thumbnail_1444000.jpg","/articles/6380084/North-Dakota/House-Judiciary-panel-advances-bill-to-block-name-search-access-to-closed-nonconviction-court-records","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380084-3b221e5813fa92c138900c63b62f4774/orig.mp4?Expires=1771168915&Signature=ITtBh7Kv7qOLU62wiXlwB29IX7B2AW7oJzEIaGUa6qIbLk5zkQscwzjp55DQ6IiEeMk7kocGT-t0z2wnRoH9AhbovO24soZ9diBRyXvT-~bLURv5PfARmY670p2E6E3wtRQHYQqfj0dUVuTx7XzW1BOovImG70XLWLX9YgJfHANEspxi8KmcgJrrU~P1Od7Wsl93bQxRzhlmUnspozFa3itGuGJW2b9XGefORdA~-KO7g6xQ9WocCcSM5fIitG6a-tWwNv6fbjIj6mMUVSKO0a3hoQERBAaevsbmPCXKConZLGnOWFRwak64uc5yC9mcPzTPzQ~P-nvtL9znuDdZ5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Judiciary Committee Chairman Clamine advanced discussion of House Bill 1166, saying the bill would prevent remote name searches of closed criminal cases that did not lead to conviction and that the committee had amended the bill to remove a retroactive application provision.

The bill’s sponsor, Chairman Clamine, told the committee that the core change is in section 2 and that a proposed retroactive sealing requirement in section 3 was removed after testimony that it would force courts to search records going back “100 years or more.” He said the panel instead adopted language preventing remote name searches of closed cases with no conviction: “a record of a closed criminal case, if there was no conviction, may not be remotely accessed by a name search.”

Why it matters: supporters said the change restores language that was removed from the Supreme Court’s administrative rule and would protect people who were charged but not convicted from having their names discovered through online name queries. Opponents argued the deletion of an explicit retroactive sealing requirement would leave earlier public disclosures in place.

Committee members pressed staff and sponsors on scope and timing. Representative Olson asked whether the Supreme Court had a stated reason for removing the sentence from its administrative rule; Chairman Clamine said the committee’s review of the rule showed no explanation. Representative Van Winkle asked for clarification about how the new language would operate for historical records; Clamine said the effect would be to restore the rule’s prior state so name searches would return nothing for sealed, nonconviction records.

The committee also adjusted an implementation timeline in the amendment: the window for completing the required action was extended from 61 to 90 days after a triggering event. Chairman Clamine said the bill remains an emergency measure and thus would take effect upon signature and delivery to the Secretary of State rather than waiting until the normal August 1 effective date.

Committee action: Representative Twite moved the amendment (identified in the transcript as the amendment offered to HB1166) and Representative Carls seconded. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote recorded in the transcript as 11 yes, 0 no, and 2 absent not voting. Representative Van Winkle later moved, and Representative Carls seconded, that the committee give HB1166 a \"do pass as amended\" recommendation; the transcript records final committee passage as 11 yes, 0 no, and 3 absent not voting.

Supporters said restoring the name-search protection was the bill’s purpose; Representative Vetter and others cautioned that removing a retroactive sealing clause would not remedy prior public disclosures. \"It's kind of the point of the bill was, hey. Let's get rid of these...because all they were is accused,\" Representative Vetter said during debate; Chairman Clamine responded that the bill returns the rule \"back to the way it was before they deleted this language.\"

What the bill does not do: the committee deleted the explicit retroactive sealing clause after testimony about burden on court staff; the record shows the committee relied instead on the restored name-search prohibition to achieve similar practical effect. The transcript contains no language committing courts to an active retroactive re-sealing process beyond the limits of the adopted amendment.

The committee advanced the bill to the next stage and identified a bill carrier to carry it through the House.

Ending: With the committee's vote complete, members moved on to other business. The bill will proceed with the committee’s recommendation to the full House under the normal legislative process.","The House Judiciary Committee voted to adopt amendments and advance House Bill 1166, which would prevent remote name searches of closed criminal cases that did not result in conviction and make the measure an emergency effective on enactment.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Judiciary panel removes closed‑hearing language and advances bill easing petition process for some registry cases

Panel votes to kill House Bill 1320 amid free-speech and scope concerns over deepfakes

Panel adds human-trafficking-of-children language to child abuse study, advances House Bill 1410

House Judiciary panel advances bill to block name-search access to closed nonconviction court records